If people assumed that I am 'Fi,' this is how they would interpret me:
"Socionics leaves something to be desired. People simply do not fit into these preconceived boxes."
"Socionics is basically pigeonholing people. And people should not be pigeonholed. Therefore, in reality, socionics is much more complicated."
However, that is in fact NOT what I am saying.
This is what I AM saying:
"Why are there 16 boxes, instead of 32 or 64 - or even 57? Why exactly 16?"
"Why do people fit into those exact 16 boxes in that exact way?"
"Why boxes? Why doesn't a spectrum suffice? Or maybe a completely different type of model?"
That is what I am actually saying. I just suspect people interpret me as saying the first two, when that isn't anything like what I mean - or maybe even because I dislike or get offended at Se, which isn't even what the theory says...
I would go so far as to say that the 'Fi' statements above are just diarrhea to me, if you want me to be quite frank...
Even the stuff about ethics/morals: once again: "Why does one's logic clash with one's ethics? I'll say it again: It clashes with common sense. In that case, why does the theory assume that?"
Therefore, I think the stuff about me being Fi - which I don't even identify with - is just rhetoric, and that's basically all there is to it...